here_2_help

Vern, ATS is a small engineering firm with less than 200 employees (according to LinkedIn). I agree there is an expedited procedure available.

Bob, I read the decision when you posted it on the front page. (Thank you for doing that, by the way!) My sense is that the issue is important to protest attorneys and their clients. I'm not sure if it does (or should) impact how a CO does business. I would be interested to hear other opinions on that.

Over on the other side of the table, I have a hard time imagining any contractor (other than the smallest) litigating $40,000. I think there would be significant hesitations over litigating $400,000. Ten years ago, while employed at a large DOD contractor, I was told our legal department had a rule of thumb: assume $2 million in (unallowable) attorney's fees and two years to get a decision. If the matter wasn't worth the time and expense, let it go. I would have advised the CO in this situation to call the contractor's (assumed) bluff. Edited to add: Oftentimes these disputes settle between the filing of the COFD appeal and the trial. I don't have the stats but I believe settlements are a common occurrence, at least based on the number of "decisions" that announce settlement.

I believe I know the answer to Question #2 but as these are legal questions -- and I am not an attorney versed in labor law let alone an attorney of any kind -- I'm going to pass. There are hundreds of lawyers who can advise Anonymous FS; I recommend he go to one of them with his questions.

I believe the case Retreadfed alluded to answered that question. (Was it AT&T? I don't have time to research right now.) The answer provided by the court was "the effective date" not the award date.

I'm over here wondering whether the contractor's costs, incurred after award date but prior to effective date, are allowable costs? Do they meet the definition of "pre-contract cost" found in FAR 31.205? If not, what are they?

I don't disagree. Seems like a good, reasonable, interpretation.

I don't believe the question has been answered. We know who is responsible for seeing maintenance is performed as required, but we haven't addressed who pays for the maintenance. Should the maintenance costs be charged as direct costs of the contract that is accountable for the property? Or should the contractor treat the costs of maintenance as an indirect ("overhead") cost? The answer depends on the contractor's established practices and what the contract says. Right now, the contractor is preparing its follow-on proposal and wants to know whether to include the costs in its cost volume as direct costs. If there is no benefit to any other contract, I would accept "charge as direct costs" as a compliant answer. Hope this helps.

Maybe I'm cynical, or maybe I'm just experienced. Either way, before doing anything I would thoroughly explore the ownership of the "losing" firm to see if there are any ties to the program personnel requesting the split.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1177_B.C.:_The_Year_Civilization_Collapsed Nothing to do with professional growth; simply intellectual curiosity.

I think you really need to get with your consultant. Something is not right here. I am reminded of a contractor I worked with about 20 years ago. The contractor had never had a real US Government prime contract before; all it had was a GSA schedule. One day, they woke up with a $500 Million CPFF contract from a civilian agency. Along the way, they were asked to propose a G&A rate. They asked the CO what a reasonable rate would be, and received an answer that 15% would be a reasonable amount. So that's what the contractor proposed in its priced offer. It was accepted. "What is your actual G&A rate?" I asked the contractor's CFO. "What's a G&A rate?" was the response. Good times.

Do you have a separate contract for each year of performance? A separately priced Option? Why do you need to make an annual "schedule" for an FFP prime contract, if what you are submitting is only a staffing plan? I'm really not clear on what you and your customer have agreed to. Second, the contract should not "state" a combined rate, except perhaps for estimating and/or billing purposes. Your company's actual indirect cost rates are not subject to government customer approval. With respect to your original question, you haven't disclosed the indirect cost rate allocation base used by your combined indirect cost rate. Does your company, in fact, have separate rates for actual costing purposes? If so, what rates apply to subcontractors? Those are the rates that you should burden your subcontractors with when proposing your annual staffing plans. Given the lack of clarity in your posts, my best advice is to hire a government contract accounting consultant--of which there are many to choose from. Let them help you.

Mic drop.

Joel, I thought about liquidated damages when I saw this question. All I can say is that when my company saw a liquidated damages clause in a proposed contract, we always proposed an incentive clause as well. Our thinking was that the door needed to swing both ways. Also, it is okay to structure a contract to pay a bonus (other than award fee) for completing the work on-time? Isn't that the parties' expectation? Early delivery bonus/incentive? Yes, I can see that. But on-time? I don't see what the government gains for incentivizing a contractor to comply with the delivery terms of the contract.

@bob7947 Rule 17?